WHAT IS THE AUTHORSHIP CONTROVERSY? WHAT ARE THE MAJOR THEORIES BEHIND THE AUTHORSHIP CONTROVERSY? WHAT FACTIONS OF SAIDES ARE THERE TO THE CONTROVERSEY? WHY DOES THIS CONTROVERSEY CONTINUE TO INTEREST SCHOLARS TODAY?
Answer prepared by: Jerry H.
Is Shakespeare, the mere actor from Stratford-Upon-Avon, truly the same genius that created some of the greatest pieces of English literature of all time? The controversy surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays poses two main theories: Under one theory, it is presumed that someone with a first-class education and background characteristic of the nobility, under a pen name, wrote the works of Shakespeare; the other acknowledges that the plays reveals an in-depth knowledge of country life, in support of the Stratford man. Over the years, there have been hypotheses as to who the true English virtuoso might have been, and current scholars continue this same debate.
In his book Shakespeare: The World as Stage, Bryson traces the various Shakespearean authorship proposals set forth. He explains that it is believed William Shakespeare, the actor, could not have composed the famous works because they are so meritorious that they “cannot possibly be the work of a single lightly educated provincial” (Bryson 181). If Shakespeare was indeed solely an actor, then it is probable that his name was donned as a disguise. Following this theory, Bryson states, “William Shakespeare of Stratford was, at best, an amiable stooge, an actor who lent his name as cover for someone of greater talent, someone who could not, for one reason or another, be publicly identified as a playwright” (181). Who, then, moved in a circle that granted access to proper education? Who might have hid their true identity?
The candidate that was first proposed was Francis Bacon, who led a public life as a member of Parliament and as Queen’s Counsel. Sir Edwin During-Lawrence discovered anagrams weaved into the plays that support his Baconian theory. For example, During-Lawrence noticed that a nonsense word in Love’s Labour’s Lost, “honorificabilitudinitatiubus” could be rearranged into the Latin hexameter “Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi,” meaning “These plays, F. Bacon’s offspring, are preserved for the world” (Bryson 186-187). However, anti-Baconians argue that the prolific publishing of such elaborate plays would have taken far more time to write than Bacon would have been able to dedicate to the craft. He “had a very full life already without taking on responsibility for the Shakespearean canon as well […and] there is an inconvenient lack of connection between Bacon and any human being associated with the theater,” says Bryson (187-188). The lack of connection to which Bryson refers is a lack of evidence. The trouble with a theory is that it is just that—a theory.
Bryson notes that “more than fifty candidates have been suggested as possible alternative Shakespeares” (193). Peter Holland, author of William Shakespeare, names many debated candidates for the true Shakespeare, including Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Rutland, Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford; all of which come from well-to-do backgrounds and are masters of the English language. “The one thing all the competing theories have in common is the conviction that William Shakespeare was in some way unsatisfactory as an author of brilliant plays,” explains Bryson (193). These captivating conjectures are surely growing to become notorieties. The possible alternatives capture the attention of scholars and public alike. In fact, a forthcoming Roland Emmerich film, Anonymous, will explore the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
J. Thomas Looeny was the first to introduce the theory that Edward de Vere was actually Shakespeare. According to Bryson, Looney maintained that, “William Shakespeare lacked the worldliness and polish to write his own plays, and that they must therefore have come from someone of broader learning and greater experience: an aristocrat in all likelihood” (188). Although this is the basis of quite a few theories, there is something that the other proposed theories lack—probable connections. De Vere was cunning and had some involvement in theater as a minor poet and playwright (Bryson 188). He was admired by Queen Elizabeth and had knowledge of courtly matters, like Shakespeare did (Bryson 188-189). Many Oxfordians think that Queen Elizabeth enjoyed Shakespeare’s plays because Shakespeare was actually the Earl of Oxford. Terry Ross, author of the article “Oxfordian Myths: Was Burghley called Polus”, says the courtier Polonius in “Hamlet” is based on Lord Burghley, Edward de Vere’s guardian.. Possibly the most compelling connection is the fact that one of Edward’s daughters was engaged to the Earl of Southampton, the man to whom Shakespeare dedicated two plays (Bryson 189). The Oxfordian theory is the current trend, and even Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is convinced.
Indeed, there is speculation that William Shakespeare the actor did not write the works of the Bard; however, the vast majority of the evidence is in favor of the Stratford man. Firstly, the name William Shakespeare appears on Shakespeare’s works, giving him the authorial credit. Secondly, the works of Shakespeare have allusions to Stratford life, especially in regards to animal hides, which William would have known well. Thirdly, Shakespeare “very seldom used the word also” (Bryson 194). Since Shakespeare was the only person who wrote without the word, it would be unlikely for someone else, such as Bacon, a frequent user of the word, to compose Shakespeare’s works (Bryson 194). If one thing is certain, it is that Shakespeare has scholars and the evidence in his favor.
The authorship controversy persists in intriguing scholars today. Shakespeare’s works are such masterpieces that scholars want to know who truly wrote them. The author’s real life may provide further insight in reading them, and a natural curiosity exists when faced with genius. In addition, it is an interesting matter because various theories can be drawn from the limited amount of evidence that we do have.
Debates concerning the true author of Shakespeare’s works are highly appealing; hence, they still getting notice. Charles Boyce, author of Shakespeare A to Z, says that “the authorship controversy remains a minor sideshow of the literary world, and it will doubtless continue to get publicity” (44). The theorists and the rest of the world may have its doubts about William Shakespeare and his capabilities, but since no further evidence has been unearthed, Shakespeare cannot be deemed a front man--yet.
Works Cited
Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1990. p 44. Print.
Answer prepared by: Jerry H.
Is Shakespeare, the mere actor from Stratford-Upon-Avon, truly the same genius that created some of the greatest pieces of English literature of all time? The controversy surrounding the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays poses two main theories: Under one theory, it is presumed that someone with a first-class education and background characteristic of the nobility, under a pen name, wrote the works of Shakespeare; the other acknowledges that the plays reveals an in-depth knowledge of country life, in support of the Stratford man. Over the years, there have been hypotheses as to who the true English virtuoso might have been, and current scholars continue this same debate.
In his book Shakespeare: The World as Stage, Bryson traces the various Shakespearean authorship proposals set forth. He explains that it is believed William Shakespeare, the actor, could not have composed the famous works because they are so meritorious that they “cannot possibly be the work of a single lightly educated provincial” (Bryson 181). If Shakespeare was indeed solely an actor, then it is probable that his name was donned as a disguise. Following this theory, Bryson states, “William Shakespeare of Stratford was, at best, an amiable stooge, an actor who lent his name as cover for someone of greater talent, someone who could not, for one reason or another, be publicly identified as a playwright” (181). Who, then, moved in a circle that granted access to proper education? Who might have hid their true identity?
The candidate that was first proposed was Francis Bacon, who led a public life as a member of Parliament and as Queen’s Counsel. Sir Edwin During-Lawrence discovered anagrams weaved into the plays that support his Baconian theory. For example, During-Lawrence noticed that a nonsense word in Love’s Labour’s Lost, “honorificabilitudinitatiubus” could be rearranged into the Latin hexameter “Hi ludi F. Baconis nati tuiti orbi,” meaning “These plays, F. Bacon’s offspring, are preserved for the world” (Bryson 186-187). However, anti-Baconians argue that the prolific publishing of such elaborate plays would have taken far more time to write than Bacon would have been able to dedicate to the craft. He “had a very full life already without taking on responsibility for the Shakespearean canon as well […and] there is an inconvenient lack of connection between Bacon and any human being associated with the theater,” says Bryson (187-188). The lack of connection to which Bryson refers is a lack of evidence. The trouble with a theory is that it is just that—a theory.
Bryson notes that “more than fifty candidates have been suggested as possible alternative Shakespeares” (193). Peter Holland, author of William Shakespeare, names many debated candidates for the true Shakespeare, including Christopher Marlowe, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Rutland, Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford; all of which come from well-to-do backgrounds and are masters of the English language. “The one thing all the competing theories have in common is the conviction that William Shakespeare was in some way unsatisfactory as an author of brilliant plays,” explains Bryson (193). These captivating conjectures are surely growing to become notorieties. The possible alternatives capture the attention of scholars and public alike. In fact, a forthcoming Roland Emmerich film, Anonymous, will explore the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.
J. Thomas Looeny was the first to introduce the theory that Edward de Vere was actually Shakespeare. According to Bryson, Looney maintained that, “William Shakespeare lacked the worldliness and polish to write his own plays, and that they must therefore have come from someone of broader learning and greater experience: an aristocrat in all likelihood” (188). Although this is the basis of quite a few theories, there is something that the other proposed theories lack—probable connections. De Vere was cunning and had some involvement in theater as a minor poet and playwright (Bryson 188). He was admired by Queen Elizabeth and had knowledge of courtly matters, like Shakespeare did (Bryson 188-189). Many Oxfordians think that Queen Elizabeth enjoyed Shakespeare’s plays because Shakespeare was actually the Earl of Oxford. Terry Ross, author of the article “Oxfordian Myths: Was Burghley called Polus”, says the courtier Polonius in “Hamlet” is based on Lord Burghley, Edward de Vere’s guardian.. Possibly the most compelling connection is the fact that one of Edward’s daughters was engaged to the Earl of Southampton, the man to whom Shakespeare dedicated two plays (Bryson 189). The Oxfordian theory is the current trend, and even Supreme Court Justice John Stevens is convinced.
Indeed, there is speculation that William Shakespeare the actor did not write the works of the Bard; however, the vast majority of the evidence is in favor of the Stratford man. Firstly, the name William Shakespeare appears on Shakespeare’s works, giving him the authorial credit. Secondly, the works of Shakespeare have allusions to Stratford life, especially in regards to animal hides, which William would have known well. Thirdly, Shakespeare “very seldom used the word also” (Bryson 194). Since Shakespeare was the only person who wrote without the word, it would be unlikely for someone else, such as Bacon, a frequent user of the word, to compose Shakespeare’s works (Bryson 194). If one thing is certain, it is that Shakespeare has scholars and the evidence in his favor.
The authorship controversy persists in intriguing scholars today. Shakespeare’s works are such masterpieces that scholars want to know who truly wrote them. The author’s real life may provide further insight in reading them, and a natural curiosity exists when faced with genius. In addition, it is an interesting matter because various theories can be drawn from the limited amount of evidence that we do have.
Debates concerning the true author of Shakespeare’s works are highly appealing; hence, they still getting notice. Charles Boyce, author of Shakespeare A to Z, says that “the authorship controversy remains a minor sideshow of the literary world, and it will doubtless continue to get publicity” (44). The theorists and the rest of the world may have its doubts about William Shakespeare and his capabilities, but since no further evidence has been unearthed, Shakespeare cannot be deemed a front man--yet.
Works Cited
Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z. New York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1990. p 44. Print.
Bravin, Jess. "Justice Stevens Renders an Opinion on Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays." Wall Street Journal (2009): n. page. Web. 10 Apr
2010.<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html>.
Bryson, Bill. Shakespeare: The World As Stage. New York, NY: Harpercollins Publishers, 2007. 181-196. Print.
Holland, Peter. William Shakespeare. Great, Clarendon Street, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 108-111. Print.
Ross, Terry. "Oxfordian Myths: Was Burghley Called "Polus"? ." shakespeareauthorship.com, n.d. Web. 10 Apr 2010.
<http://shakespeareauthorship.com/polus.html>.
Edward de Vere:
Sir Francis Bacon:
Click here to explore the Marlowe theory (on Youtube!):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTM0wW2SNlU&feature=related
Click here to play some fun Shakespeare games! http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/shakespeare/playhouse/shakespeare.php
Click here to learn a bit about the upcoming film 'Anonymous' http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/02/25/roland-emmerichs-next-is-anonymous-about-shakespeare/
A bit of information on why Justice John Paul Stevens is 'Oxfordian of the year' (2009).
The Wall Street Journal Publishes John Paul Stevens' thoughts on the authorship controversy:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html (also found in the previous link).